Thursday, September 05, 2013

Rauner's questionable term-limits drive is underway

There's no question in my mind that the Committee for Legislative Reform and Term Limits, an independent arm of Republican Bruce Rauner's campaign for Illinois governor, will get the nearly 300,000 petition signatures needed to put the term-limits question on the November 2014 ballot.

Rauner has very deep pockets and, as I noted recently, the idea is wildly popular with voters. It never loses when put to a referendum vote, and polls consistently show it with a 70 percent-plus approval rating.

So there's also no question in my mind that the proposition will pass if it's put before the voters.

But I very much question whether the Illinois Supreme Court will
allow the question to be placed on the ballot, no matter how many
signatures Team Rauner gathers or how dramatically opinion polling
favors it.

The justices blocked a similar attempt in 1994 when then-Treasurer
Pat Quinn was leading the effort. Their reasoning went as follows:

The power of citizens to initiate amendments to the state constitution via
petition drive was limited by the framers only "to structural and
procedural subjects contained" in Article IV, the one that deals with
the legislature.

The reason for this limit, for better or worse, was to prevent
Illinois from becoming a state in which legislative questions — about
taxes, marijuana, gay mar riage, abortion and so on — were routinely left up to the voters.

So would term limits change the structure of the legislature?

No, the majority ruled in 1994. Even with term limits, "The General Assembly would remain a bicameral legislature consisting of a House and Senate with a total of 177 members, and would maintain the same organization."

Would it change the procedures of the legislature?

Again, no. "The process by which the General Assembly adopts a law would remain unchanged" with the addition of term limits, said the
majority opinion.

And even if the answer was "yes" to one of those questions, the
constitution requires that it be "yes" to both. "This court is without
authority to substitute 'or' for the 'and' the constitutional convention
used in stating 'structural and procedural,'" noted the opinion.

So why do supporters of Rauner's political action committee expect a different result this time?

First, because the 1994 decision was narrowly decided — 4-3 — and
there are now six new justices on the court (though the one remaining
justice, Charles Freeman, was part of the majority).

The dissent in 1994 argued that "Democracy should be permitted to
take its course" and that the nitpicky linguistic parsing of the
majority resulted in "a fiction that venerates the power of our incumbent legislators and demeans the intelligence of their constituents."

And second, because the Committee for Legislative Reform and Term Limits has larded onto its petition two other proposals.

One of them changes the structure of the legislature by increasing the size of the House and shrinking the Senate.

The other changes the procedures of the legislature by raising the
requirement to override a governor's veto to a two-thirds vote of the
legislature from the current three-fifths.

If, earlier this week when Rauner's proposal was formally unveiled,
you wondered why it included this pair of off-the-radar-screen ideas,
now you know: It's an effort to create a plausible reason for the
Supreme Court to give the OK.

"These are three interrelated reforms," said Mike Schrimpf, a
spokesman for Rauner and the term-limits effort. "Taken all together,
they make the legislature more responsive to the citizens and they make
elections more competitive."

He pointed to an earlier state Supreme Court ruling that allowed on
the ballot the multipart referendum that shrank the legislature, created
single-member districts and eliminated cumulative voting.

But it's a stretch. Clearly, term limits is a separate and separable
issue from veto thresholds and the size of the legislative chambers.

And, equally clearly, it's the sort of question that doesn't pass the
constitutional test for citizen initiatives, no matter how many other
gaudy, distracting questions you surround it with.

But will the Supreme Court have the courage once again to buck public opinion and give term limits the heave-ho?

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Does Rauner really need the initiative to get on the ballot?

He can ride the issue through the primary election in March, using it to establish his bone fides among conservative Republicans while winking at his more tolerant North Shore neighbors. If he loses the primary, he may lose interest in the thing. If he wins the primary, then he can either hope that it's on the ballot and he can run on it in November, playing the same game as he did in the primary, or the Court can strike it from the ballot and he can rail against the powers that be that won't let voters vote.

"The reason for this limit, for better or worse, was to prevent Illinois from becoming a state in which legislative questions — about taxes, marijuana, gay marriage, abortion and so on — were routinely left up to the voters."

Yes, the voters shouldn't actually have a say in how the state is run!

DaveB - I personally think an actual Democracy even at the state level would be a huge headache. I prefer the Republic model for such a large and diverse group of people. Can you imagine having to put your two cents in for everything the legislature has to deal with on a daily basis? And from an engagement standpoint - I mean, we can barely get people to elect representatives much less fully participate in a truly democratic rule of law.

Eric, term limits would seem to be a different category than your favored social issues. How would term limits be bad for this state that is clearly struggling under democrat rule? Maybe some citizens with some new ideas that can have a chance to break through Chicago democrat ward army politics would give politics a try. Chicago area democrat politics are clearly at the center of this states problems - that is hard to deny. Maybe some conservative ideas would get a shot every now and then. Conservatives are not evil. They will never bust urban liberlism but a bit of diversity in Chicago politics would be refreshing and that is what this is about. The social issues will be decided by demographic changes. What is to fear on term limits? At least the debate at the election level would be more fair.

@DaveB:
The reason we don't have citizen initiatives here is that the 1970 Constitution was written by a bunch of fools, led by a North Shore elitist named Sam Witwer, "The Dean of the convention, who didn't think the great unwashed should have any say in government.

On Dick Durbin's website, he lists his "occupation" as "legislator". Reason enough for term limits. Despite all the legalistic blabber in Zorn's piece above, all one needs to serve responsibly is to be able to read and write and exercise some common sense. Politics as a career is destructive to the politician and to the public. As some wag said, "the most dangerous time for the republic is when the legislature is in session". Anyone who thinks that he/she knows best, spends other people's money and feeds at the public trough should only be in office a very short time. And don't forget that the Illinois Supreme Court comes danderously close to that category. And BTW, it is difficult to blame any of Illinois troubles on the republicans since there aren't any.

ZORN REPLY -- I wonder how many of you who think this is "legalistic blabber" feel the same way about provisions of the U.S. Constitution. I'm guessing the overlap between people who bellow to the high heavens about following the word of the Constitution to the letter and those who think we should simply ignore the state constitutional limits on referenda is fairly large.

Mike: Don't see how term limits would allow for "some conservative ideas" to "get a shot every now and then."

And by the way, last time I checked, it is not "democrat rule" but "Democratic Party rule." You would not say "repulbican rule" rule would you? Try using capital letters and give the proper spelling of the name.

Direct democracy is not always a good idea. You tend to get better government with representational democracy, which is what our Founding Fathers believed. They thought decisions on issues should not be decided on the passions and emotions of the mob, and given the level of ignorance you find from some of these these popular movements ("Keep the government out of our Medicare!") I can see why. I am sure some of the conservatives on this site, who wish for a government that existed in the United States circa 1790 would agree.

ZORN REPLY -- I've decided I like it when people say "democrat party." It marks them as idiots and I can begin ignoring them more quickly.

The only real courage the Illinois Supreme Court could show would be to buck their party bosses and actually allow these amendments to be voted on. Bucking popular opinion is all in a day's work for these guys, just like the legislature's leadership, to whom they are beholden.

Look, term limits would eliminate career politicians and the inevitable corruption they create in Illinois. It would also eliminate legislative pensions, since these "jobs" would then become what they should be: Part-time government service positions. And, in the end, it would make the political class in Illinois accountable to the citizens, not the various vested interests at the state level.

I'm on board with Eric's reasoning here and the Court's 1994 ruling. Whatever you think of term-limits (and I'm generally for them), it looks plainly unconstitutional. There is a real danger in trying to achieve a desired political result by creatively interpreting a constitution and I'd urge conservatives to avoid doing that here. On the federal side, I'd love to have a valid argument that the US Constitution permits the line item veto or prohibits abortion but neither exist and we can't make it so without amendments.

Rauner's arguments in favor of the legality of his term limits drive seem very unimpressive (much like his campaign so far). As I wrote in an earlier thread, he strikes me as a liberal opportunist out of touch with the Republican base - along the lines of Mitt Romney. I'm inclined to look elsewhere for a candidate and I expect my fellow Republicans to do the same.

--Greg J, I do think you must have meant "libertarian" when talking about Rauner - or at least, not a"liberal". He is in no way a liberal (neither was Romney, unless it suited him at the moment). Just look at his views on many subjects. I refuse to admit him to my club! Maybe you could call him just an opportunist.

Indeed I should clarify because I don't want you to be forced to admit anyone to your club who doesn't belong. After all, I'm a supporter of freedom of association, which should not surprise you.

All kidding aside, you are right that Rauner and Romney shouldn't be classified as liberal per the broad political spectrum. Neither of them fit the definition of libertarian either so let's go with "opportunist" (or "shady used car salesmen" if you prefer). In Romney's case, it's appropriate because I suspect he's closer to the social views he expressed in his Mass. Senate race than his views in '08 or '12. Oh, and he did pass that huge ill-advised government program that Pres. Obama used as the basis for his own. In Rauner's case, it's appropriate because he ducks any and all social issue questions, which is not only opportunistic but gutless. I suspect he's more liberal than he's letting on.

Term limits have been enacted in a number of states. Is there any state where legislative quality has improved as a result?

The last time voters restructured the legislature was in 1980 with Quinn's Cutback Amendment. It also had populist appeal by getting rid of "59 blood-sucking politicians" as the old "Big House" was reduced by one-third and cumulative voting was abolished. By general consensus, the House has become a less deliberative and more partisan body every since. The main result has been one-man rule in the House (and that includes the two years Lee Daniels was Speaker).

In other words, so-called reforms can make things worse, as the Cutback Amendment did. Once these things pass, there's no undoing them. It's a shame Trib editors have uncritically embraced the Rauner proposal.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.